Bloom's Taxonomy divides and ranks thinking skills and their objectives according to a sequence that mirrors the thinking process in order from "Lower Order" thinking skills to "Higher Order" ones; the initial version developed by Bloom himself is brief and clear-cut, but as a consequence is also ambiguous and imprecise due to the breadth of potential meanings of the terminology used therein. The revision proposed by his student Lorin Anderson made several significant changes:
Use of verbs, rather than nouns. This change makes the sequential order more obvious; rather than a collection of ranked skills, it reads as a series of actions related to those skills, and the reader can more easily imagine the relationship between them. Bloom's initial version required explanation to demonstrate sequence, as nouns are not usually seen as leading into other nouns: one does not assume that "fork" leads to "mouth", but the addition of verbs that describe the actions of moving the fork to the mouth creates the suggestion of the act of eating. This is key: verbs create sequences. By presenting a series of verbs, Anderson almost entirely eliminates the need for an explanation of the sequence, and visual keys like the arrow are all but unneeded.
Anderson's addition of key verbs for each category serves to take the broad possible meanings of Bloom's noun-based categories and render them more precise by defining what more specific actions are encompassed by each. It also serves to broaden meanings: the typical reader may not immediately consider "planning" to be part of "Creating", instead assuming it has its place between "Creating" and "Evaluating". Bloom's categories relied on the preconceptions of the audience regarding the meanings of each category, and required more detailed explanation. This detailed explanation is built right into Anderson's version.
The addition of the category of "Creating" is important, as well; Bloom's original Taxonomy ends with "Evaluation". By making creation part of the thinking process, Anderson changes it from a purely mental activity to one that acts upon the physical (or digital) world.
While this is an excellent tool for the discussion of the thinking process in taxonomic terms, I don't entirely agree that these categories are as clear-cut as Bloom and Anderson make them out to be, the divisions do not seem appropriate. A prominent example is the mention of blogging in the digital taxonomy that Andrew Churches presents: commenting on blogs is placed under "evaluating", while blogging is placed under "creating". As an infrequent blogger and a more frequent micro-blogger, I can say that my own experience has been that commenting on a blog post is sometimes an even more creative act than the original post itself: a blog post may invite comments in response to a question, or a brief post might invite discussion (and a good blog post should always invite discussion) that is far longer than the initial posting. Such responses require the same sequential process as the creation of the blog post itself, and yet Church seems to believe that they do not cover the full sequence, that there is no designing, planning, or devising involved in a well-written comment.
If a teacher who blogs or creates some other web media has the goal to provoke a reaction and retention among students, this is poor structure: a student not inspired to continue to the process of creation in response to the teacher's posting will likely react much as the students in the Glasbergen cartoon. By not forming a connection to the original posting through creating something related to it, they have only one "copy" of the original information. The students lack a "back-up copy" in the form of their own more personal opinions on the original creation, expressed through a completed thought process.
This relates to Harada's discussion of rote learning versus inquiry: the learner who, to continue the previous example, only comments on a blog as a form of evaluation and does not do so as their own act of creation is merely regurgitating the thoughts of the original poster or reacting superficially, just as the students in Harada's example did with the zoological encyclopedias. She cites the inquiry process defined by Stripling, which closely mirrors Bloom's taxonomy in structure; however, here we see "reflection" as the final step, rather than "evaluating" or "creating". I propose that the example of commenting on blogs and blogging shows that the taxonomy should perhaps be reduced a step by combining the last two categories, as the key verbs included show two acts that are better expressed as one: proper evaluation and creation are inextricable, unless one wishes the creation to be the forgettable product of rote learning.
- Use of verbs, rather than nouns. This change makes the sequential order more obvious; rather than a collection of ranked skills, it reads as a series of actions related to those skills, and the reader can more easily imagine the relationship between them. Bloom's initial version required explanation to demonstrate sequence, as nouns are not usually seen as leading into other nouns: one does not assume that "fork" leads to "mouth", but the addition of verbs that describe the actions of moving the fork to the mouth creates the suggestion of the act of eating. This is key: verbs create sequences. By presenting a series of verbs, Anderson almost entirely eliminates the need for an explanation of the sequence, and visual keys like the arrow are all but unneeded.
- Anderson's addition of key verbs for each category serves to take the broad possible meanings of Bloom's noun-based categories and render them more precise by defining what more specific actions are encompassed by each. It also serves to broaden meanings: the typical reader may not immediately consider "planning" to be part of "Creating", instead assuming it has its place between "Creating" and "Evaluating". Bloom's categories relied on the preconceptions of the audience regarding the meanings of each category, and required more detailed explanation. This detailed explanation is built right into Anderson's version.
- The addition of the category of "Creating" is important, as well; Bloom's original Taxonomy ends with "Evaluation". By making creation part of the thinking process, Anderson changes it from a purely mental activity to one that acts upon the physical (or digital) world.
While this is an excellent tool for the discussion of the thinking process in taxonomic terms, I don't entirely agree that these categories are as clear-cut as Bloom and Anderson make them out to be, the divisions do not seem appropriate. A prominent example is the mention of blogging in the digital taxonomy that Andrew Churches presents: commenting on blogs is placed under "evaluating", while blogging is placed under "creating". As an infrequent blogger and a more frequent micro-blogger, I can say that my own experience has been that commenting on a blog post is sometimes an even more creative act than the original post itself: a blog post may invite comments in response to a question, or a brief post might invite discussion (and a good blog post should always invite discussion) that is far longer than the initial posting. Such responses require the same sequential process as the creation of the blog post itself, and yet Church seems to believe that they do not cover the full sequence, that there is no designing, planning, or devising involved in a well-written comment.If a teacher who blogs or creates some other web media has the goal to provoke a reaction and retention among students, this is poor structure: a student not inspired to continue to the process of creation in response to the teacher's posting will likely react much as the students in the Glasbergen cartoon. By not forming a connection to the original posting through creating something related to it, they have only one "copy" of the original information. The students lack a "back-up copy" in the form of their own more personal opinions on the original creation, expressed through a completed thought process.
This relates to Harada's discussion of rote learning versus inquiry: the learner who, to continue the previous example, only comments on a blog as a form of evaluation and does not do so as their own act of creation is merely regurgitating the thoughts of the original poster or reacting superficially, just as the students in Harada's example did with the zoological encyclopedias. She cites the inquiry process defined by Stripling, which closely mirrors Bloom's taxonomy in structure; however, here we see "reflection" as the final step, rather than "evaluating" or "creating". I propose that the example of commenting on blogs and blogging shows that the taxonomy should perhaps be reduced a step by combining the last two categories, as the key verbs included show two acts that are better expressed as one: proper evaluation and creation are inextricable, unless one wishes the creation to be the forgettable product of rote learning.